KMA Weather MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the forecast covers 'Next 6 hours' and use cases, but does not disclose critical traits like data sources, update frequency, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a weather tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by brief usage examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (weather forecasting with 2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers basic purpose and usage but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and sibling differentiation. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps in context, especially with no annotations to supplement it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 2 parameters (latitude, longitude) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not add any parameter semantics. It fails to explain what these coordinates represent (e.g., geographic point for forecast), their format, or constraints, leaving parameters undocumented beyond their names and types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Ultra Short Term Forecast (Next 6 hours)' specifies the verb (get) and resource (forecast) with a time scope. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_village_forecast' by focusing on ultra-short-term rather than village-level forecasts, though the distinction could be more explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes 'useful for: checking immediate weather changes, near-future rain/snow probability,' which implies usage context for immediate weather needs. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_village_forecast' or any alternatives, leaving the distinction somewhat vague.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.